New Castle Sch. Dist. v. Travers, 44 A.2d 665 (1945). · Go Syfert
New Castle Sch. Dist. v. Travers, 44 A.2d 665 (1945). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stoutenburgh v. Upper Moreland-Hatboro Joint Sewer Authority (pasuperct, 1960-03-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stoutenburgh v. Upper Moreland-Hatboro Joint Sewer Authority
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1960 · confidence medium
We are reminded here of what was said by Judge B rah am and adopted by the Supreme Court in New Castle School District v. Travers, 353 Pa. 261, 264, 265 , 44 A. 2d 665 (1945) : “One cause contributing to the diminution of public confidence in, and the diversion of business from, the courts of common pleas of the Commonwealth has been the courts’ worship of technical points of procedure . . .
discussed Cited "see" Erie Appeal (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1945 · signal: see · confidence high
See New Castle School District v. Travers et al., 353 Pa. 261 , 44 A. 2d 665 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
New Castle School District
v.
Travers Et Al., County Commissioners Et Al., Appellants
Sep 25, 1945.
44 A.2d 665
William McElwee, Jr. , County Solicitor, for appellants. Robert L. Wallace , for School District of City of New Castle, appellee. Robert White , with him Gilbert E. Long , for City of New Castle, appellee.
Ctjeiam, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson, Stearns, Jones.
Pee Ctjeiam,

This appeal , is from a final decree in a proceeding under the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1923, as amended, which prays for a declaration of rights determining the proportion in which taxing authorities, county, city, school district and institution district, are entitled to the rents from real estate purchased by County Commissioners at County Treasurer’s Sales and not redeemed by the former owners during the period of time allowed by law.

The taxing authorities have been unable to agree upon a satisfactory basis for distribution thereof because different “methods” of distribution have been pressed by some of the parties and opposed by others until an actual controversy exists. At the time of the hearing there were about 204 properties from which rents had been so received, and there was then more than $50,000 in the rent fund. The question is who gets the rentals collected from such properties while the county owns them, and upon what basis is division of the rentals to be made.

The learned court below, by its President Judge, Honorable W. Waltee Beaham, answered these questions in a satisfactory way in an able and thorough opinion. We cannot add anything helpful to what has been done. We therefore affirm on its opinion the final decree of the learned court below.

Decree affirmed.